First "Heavy" for MSFS?

[BuboBubo 35]

5 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

I understand your post but MS bought the A310 from Inibuilds. Loung hauls for me, mean fly from Los Angeles to Dubai (16 hrs) something the A310 did not in real life. but a 777-2 or 787-9 did. Trust me I have not paid for the MSFS premium upgrade until they fix the 787. I enjoy Fenix. PMDG and Maddog Blackbird C310 for now.

A339 max range is 7200 nm and great circle distance LAX-DXB is 7246 nm. so I'd say the Headwind A330 can do it with a light load of pax/cargo.  Lack of step climb functions in he FMC could be an issue, but there is only one
way to find out and that is try it. I once did LGW-MSP in the FBW without any issue. I've also tried ANC-LGW, unfortunately the game crashed while being somewhere over northern Canada but judging by efob when i reached
cruise alt I would have made it. This is a desktop simulator most of us use it for our own amusement. Perfect to try things like that.

Edited January 14, 2023 by BuboBubo

[Noel 4,487]

5 hours ago, micstatic said:

 I think with the programs you mention is also good.  Particularly for those with a heavy video game background where scores (or even landing rates) are perceived as the prize they are chasing.  

Besides getting me to fly all over the world for me it's just that w/o consequences I just don't commit to executing flights as 'correctly' as possible, get sloppy etc.  The fairly simple but meaningful set of evaluation criteria that APL currently monitors is sufficient to help me care about the outcome.  So I need the structure.  Initially for MSFS I was so struck by how much FS had improved that just learning the sim and exploring default planes was enough to keep me interested.   Here is the scoring criteria table from APLv2.  My current composite score is 98.14.  I was getting quite close to 99% however had a couple of 94%'s and a 96% and there she went!  There are currently 4,702 pilots using APLv2:

 

[Noel 4,487]

18 minutes ago, BuboBubo said:

Just embrace it and we will be happy to welcome you to the light side of the force. 😉🙃

Misery always loves company 😉😂 

Right now I'm proficient (per APLv2's criteria only!) in 3 planes and am willing to take on one more so we'll see.  Of all current Airbuses for MSFS, which one is a good balance of performance (CPU/GPU) and complexity?  PMDG 738 has a fabulous performance profile.  I'm also a sucker for nice looking cockpit graphics including color and resolution.  Do all Airbuses have the drab blue/gray cockpit colors?

 

[crimplene 631]

5 minutes ago, Noel said:

Misery always loves company 😉😂 

Right now I'm proficient (per APLv2's criteria only!) in 3 planes and am willing to take on one more so we'll see.  Of all current Airbuses for MSFS, which one is a good balance of performance (CPU/GPU) and complexity?  PMDG 738 has a fabulous performance profile.  I'm also a sucker for nice looking cockpit graphics including color and resolution.  Do all Airbuses have the drab blue/gray cockpit colors?

 

APL sounds interesting but I would never do flights longer than 1 hour, because I get bored to death if the cruise phase lasts longer than 10 minutes. 🙂 Is it possible to configure APL to assign me to non-real life very short routes? I would love a nice career mode but not love most real-life routes. 

I am doing an around the world right now with the Fenix A320. And I am very carefully planning to cross the Pacific via the Aleutes because of cruise boredom. Even Iceland to Greenland was a bit too long for my taste - 800 nm, for goodness sake.

[Noel 4,487]

38 minutes ago, crimplene said:

APL sounds interesting but I would never do flights longer than 1 hour, because I get bored to death if the cruise phase lasts longer than 10 minutes

I mainly do short routes.  When you complete a 'schedule' you choose the next schedule which APL configures for you, but you only accept it if you like it otherwise regenerate another configuration with a button press and go from there.  If the scoring piece isn't important and you don't want to fly actual routes sounds like it's not a good fit for you currently.  

Here is my current schedule which was all Short routes.  I aim for shorter routes and occasionally choose Short + Medium routes:

[threexgreen 3,135]

17 hours ago, jpe828 said:

I have a question for a self proclaimed "Heavy" lover. I like the 737 because I can do a 30 minute hop, or a 5 hour hop. In a Heavy, I feel like you have to do long hauls. Why is that enjoyable? Do you leave the PC running? What makes it fun? Genuinely curious, maybe I will change my mind. 

Just my two cents, but flying long haul is an enormous waste of power. Any beefy flight sim PC draws a lot of power and leaving the PC running for an 8 hour cruise while you're not even there... ouch says my electricity bill (and the planet). Plus you don't get any more simming time than if you flew a 2 hour flight if you're only there up to TOC and down from TOD.

[JYW 2,977]

15 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Try to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney (15hrs) in 7 hrs over water. No plane in MSFS can do that properly current that's the point.

No, the point is, you decided that a long-haul plane needs to have a endurance of 12+ hours.  Whereas the industry considers 7+ hours to be "long-haul".

[moxiejeff 17]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:55 PM, mikeymike said:

Forget about the qw787. They are dead!

What a  waste of money. I will never buy from them again.

 

mike

Agreed; we waited and waited and waited with QW 787 and zero communication from their last update over 2 years ago. Such a shame. We desperately need a good MODERN long hauler. The A310 does not scratch that itch.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,932]

21 hours ago, Nixoq said:

Just my two cents, but flying long haul is an enormous waste of power.

My conscience is clear. Being retired and having solar panels means I generate most of the power my computers use. The exception is short winter days of course.

[threexgreen 3,135]

46 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Being retired and having solar panels means I generate most of the power my computers use.

That's actually really nice.

[F737MAX 5,558]

56 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

My conscience is clear. Being retired and having solar panels means I generate most of the power my computers use. The exception is short winter days of course.

Your long-hauls tend to last only 3.5 hours though! 😉

Personally, I agree with @Nixoq Complete waste of resources, especially if you are doing something else during the long cruise phase. Better to stop at TOC, slew or reposition to TOD and continue with flight there.

FSi Panel is great as it sets up certain airliners from anywhere, including the start of a STAR and sets appropriate fuel, weight and balance. Helps to create a realistic approach.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,932]

32 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

That's actually really nice.

Thanks. I made the decision 12 months after retirement and it made perfect sense since you need to be at home to take advantage of the power generated.

8 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Your long-hauls tend to last only 3.5 hours though! 😉

Personally, I agree with @Nixoq Complete waste of resources, especially if you are doing something else during the long cruise phase. Better to stop at TOC, slew or reposition to TOD and continue with flight there.

FSi Panel is great as it sets up certain airliners from anywhere, including the start of a STAR and sets appropriate fuel, weight and balance. Helps to create a realistic approach.

I don’t fly Concorde much at the moment as it means using the 32-bit P3D. Downsizing a 1920*1080 display on a 4K monitor is also not ideal. Not long to wait though for the 64-bit one. I’m flying the PMDG737 at present and vary my flights according to available time. LEMH-LFBO and LFBO-EGNT today.

Surely if you slew from ToC to ToD your fuel will not change so could encounter problems when landing.

I keep my eye on you lot when ToC is reached. 😁

[Konterhalbe 295]

On 1/14/2023 at 1:10 AM, jpe828 said:

I have a question for a self proclaimed "Heavy" lover. I like the 737 because I can do a 30 minute hop, or a 5 hour hop. In a Heavy, I feel like you have to do long hauls. Why is that enjoyable? Do you leave the PC running? What makes it fun? Genuinely curious, maybe I will change my mind. 

You can do short hops in a 777 too.

Austrian used to fly 777s on line training from Vienna to Paris, Frankfurt, Milano, Larnaca etc.

It's a sim and you can sim almost whatever operation you want to.
In P3D I flew the cargo 747 on short routes too ("officially" simulating transport of expensive horses or super time critical goods or whatever).


Also flying longhaul on VATSIM was super enjoyable: Flightplanning is a lot more challenging when planning with oceanic routes or to other continents. You have to count in time zone differences (not all airports are open 24h). ATC language accents and procedures are quite different in Europe/Caribbean/US/Asia etc. You can log off for a couple hours and go cycling or whatever and log back on when coming back.

Really looking forward to the 777 🙂

[IanHarrison 521]

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Your long-hauls tend to last only 3.5 hours though! 😉

Personally, I agree with @Nixoq Complete waste of resources, especially if you are doing something else during the long cruise phase. Better to stop at TOC, slew or reposition to TOD and continue with flight there.

FSi Panel is great as it sets up certain airliners from anywhere, including the start of a STAR and sets appropriate fuel, weight and balance. Helps to create a realistic approach.

It makes sense if you want to reproduce actual flights (and fly for a VA that does not let you slew or restart after a pause). For instance, I leave JHB at 10pm, fly overnight on A/P, the PC pauses at TOD and I land the plane when I wake up. Couldn't tell how much it costs, no way to know.

[Konterhalbe 295]

6 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

It makes sense if you want to reproduce actual flights (and fly for a VA that does not let you slew or restart after a pause). For instance, I leave JHB at 10pm, fly overnight on A/P, the PC pauses at TOD and I land the plane when I wake up. Couldn't tell how much it costs, no way to know.

I don't know how much power an average PC consumes while doing this (monitors off, just the sim and the PC running).
Lets say 250W. You do this for 8 hrs, equals an energy consumption of 2kWh.

I pay 0,32EUR per 1 kWh. This flight would cost me 64 cents at the end of the day...

Absolutely acceptable imho